Kakafika's page

I for one am excited to see how alignment plays out when we get into PFO. I think the system as currently described will make for settlements that are much more diverse than we might see if settlements could allow persons of every alignment.

There is no reason CE and LG friends can't still play together... war, dungeon delving, trading, etc. One thing to remember is that forming a Kingdom will allow even more alignments to come under a single banner. Though alliances can already allow this, kingdoms are maybe a bit more close-knit... if this is what is desired.

This thread is so awesome...

There are some types of players that view the acquisition of ingame items as the intrinsic goals of the game. Those players are angered by other players who earn them by means other than playing the game.

There are other players who see the equipment as instrumental goals, which are prerequisites for playing the game. Those players see no problem with other players having those things without earning them.

There is a third type of player that sees arbitrage on that stuff AS the game.

Most actual people are some mixture of the various types.

Hah, I was just adding a few paragraphs to my post to include that =P

The basic transaction that occurs when one player buys gold from another (either illegally from a gold farmer or legally by selling a PLEX-like item [in PFO, we are jokingly referring to these as "Goblin Balls" until GW gives us a proper name]) is that one player is paying $$ for another player's time.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Player A doesn't have much time to play, but he doesn't want to fall forever behind other players and he has some extra $$. Player B has a ton of time to play, but he can't afford (or otherwise wishes not to pay) a monthly subscription.

Player A pays Player B's monthly subscription in exchange for the fruits of some hours of Player B's playtime, measured in gold. Player As are now able to experience the game as they wish (now being able to afford rare, top-tier items without playing more than they are able to or want to). Player Bs can continue their subscription where they otherwise may have to cancel it and/or can better adjust their $$ spending on the game to something they are more comfortable with.

The players that this doesn't benefit, Player Cs, are poor in both playtime and $$. But they aren't made worse off, either.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

There isn't much reason to not allow players to make this mutually beneficial arrangement. The only really good one is the example in EvE that somebody posted, where there was one way to farm gold that was significantly faster than others. This skewed PLEX purchases towards these players and away from all other types of players, which is undesirable as it reduces the benefit of having the system there for Player Bs in the first place.

I think the recent thread about types of players is somewhat telling for why there is pushback against this idea:

Some players may feel that wealth is an achievement that is properly awarded to the Player Bs of the world for putting in the time to accumulate it. They dislike it when other Player Bs redistribute their wealth, which diminishes their own accomplishment.

I've seen this sentiment in games without PLEX-like systems, too. In WoW, many people would get very upset if a rich player created a ton of an expensive item and sold them at a loss on the AH or gave them away to new players. Essentially, the offended party felt they should be able to restrict another player's freedom to do with their wealth what they pleased because that player was diminishing the offended's own wealth (accomplishments).

I like to think of it like this: Instead of just competing against the players that have a lot of time to invest in the gameworld, I'm also competing against the players that have a lot of $$ to invest in the gameworld. The great thing about a Goblin Balls item is that a character can only use them up at a rate of 1 per month, which acts to naturally slow down the market for them. Also, if a Player A or group of Player As throws a ton of money at GW in order to buy Goblin Balls, they will get less and less gold for each as they accumulate a higher and higher percentage of the total world wealth. Also, Goblinworks can (and Ryan has stated elsewhere that he will) manipulate the supply and therefore gold price of Goblin Balls by changing the $$ cost of Goblin Balls (just as the EvE developers did in an example that another poster put forth in this thread).

I think using old on-topic threads is great, it's just very helpful to make a note "this is an old thread, note the post dates" when you necro the thread. That way, new posters know that they have more information than we had during the original discussion.

Hrm. Okay then... a balanced world view literately?

lol

DeciusBrutus wrote:

... My guild invites are acting funny. I sent the details via PM to Cris Lambertz, Digital product Assistant, because he has been quick to jump on lots of technical difficulty reports. Was that the best person to contact?

That's fine... and Chris is a she. :-)

Mind: Blown.

+1

I prefer no daily limits, and instead having a weekly or monthly limit. Or even a monthly limit in conjunction with weekly limits, if this is desirable and not too complicated.

I think weekly/monthly limits strike a good balance between incentivizing players to log in regularly and aiding players that can only play at irregular intervals for varying spans of time.

@Being I'm not exactly sure how I feel about it, but from the header "Escalation Mechanics:"

The combination of different types of strength-based advances, expansion preference, stage advances, and quests associated with stages provides us with a wide variety of tools for creating very different experiences from escalation to escalation. Some escalations like the barbarian raid will effectively "march" across the map; some will reach a defensible limit and fort up; some will keep trying to expand indefinitely and attempt to overrun the entire map. Some escalations will burn out on their own, and simply leave if no one defeats them. Others will continue indefinitely until someone puts them down.

My bold

@Bludd But we already have 5 new threads in which to discuss alignment each week... ='(

I was being more specific, though. There was 'that' statement (quoted) about what is considered evil/chaotic. I get the feeling that that discussion has been going on since the alignment system was conceived.

It's a fine discussion to have (again, and again... =P) but we already know the answer in regards to PFO: Stealing is Chaotic, not Evil, in our world.

You have to take some facts about alignment in hand before you can have a discussion about what alignment you believe bandits will be in PFO.

And I don't consider that sort of a discussion to be an 'alignment discussion,' nor off-topic, of course. The podcast did not touch at all on what is (or should be) considered evil or chaotic.

The change of price of PLEX is a function of existing inflation and supply & demand of PLEX. It does not cause new money to be created.

@Hardin I may be mistaken, but for whatever reason, it seems to me like you keep arguing against a global AH... but I don't think anybody else is talking about global AHs.

I feel like there is some major miscommunication going on.

I'm glad this one found its way to us.

I think a good 40 minutes for Being to get it all out there every few months will do us all some good:

"I know I've gotten off-track, but then that's my specialty *hearty chuckle*"
=P

I've been looking forward to this, thanks.

I'm sorry but stealing and extortion is still evil. No matter how much you point out what you don't do. So I agree with Being on the bandit alignment.

*winces*

Please, let's not make this another alignment thread

EDIT: Wow, this was even better than I expected. I do hope Krows and Being get another chance to do this again soon.

laffs: 34:30 + 35:15

Interesting read, thanks for sharing, Avena.

Deianira wrote:

Bringslite wrote:

Don't feel intimidated. Though I can understand why people might. I am very new around here also but I decided to dive right in and am using "we" more than "you" or "they" now. Not because I don't feel a little intimidated by "older" posters or the sheer volume of material (because I do a little =D ). Just because I remember that it is a public forum and I have ideas and opinions that I like to debate. Believe me we are "close-knit" when we play nice but we LOVE to argue. That is really okay though.

Thank you for responding - and I mean that sincerely. It's not a matter of intimidation, but is two-fold: I only post if I have something to contribute to a topic, and I won't then continue posting unless there is a later post in the thread offering a point which sparks further thoughts from me. Also, again, there have not been many topics recently which I felt I had something to contribute to at all - and that is likely true for others as well.

My post above was not meant to be a complaint, but rather the perspective of someone who is not part of the "posting 100" but is still very interested in the game. Just think of me as the strong but silent type!

Gotcha. I suppose you should only take the time to post if the topic interests you.

I wish that there were a way to spark more interest in people to post their thoughts. It has seemed to slow down since I first started blah blahhing around here.

Why'd you scare 'em all away, bro?

Settlements will also receive income from selling training.

One of the devs stated in an interview (or maybe it was the KS video update?) that players would be able to interact with escalations in other ways than simply fighting them. It could be gated by character alignment or which faction you are allied with.

@Hobs From the blog, I got the feeling that monsters would invade nearby wilderness hexes from their origin point (the monster hex).If left alone, some would continue to invade nearby wilderness hexes, some would 'dig in', and some might simply 'go away'. There was the example of the barbarian cycle 'marching' across the landscape, for instance. If the escalation was beat back, players would 'reclaim' the overrun wilderness hexes. We don't know much about Monster Hexes, but it seems those are a permanent infestation, as opposed to the overrun wilderness hexes which otherwise seem to function similarly.

It seems pretty close to what you were saying. Not quite as dynamic, but easier to implement. I was very excited about this new information about how different monster escalation cycles might affect the landscape in different ways =D

Happy birthday, Rokolith

This conversation is definitely focused on the edge-case.

Kakafika wrote:

Nihimon wrote:

@Dario, I'm saying I think my example is more likely to actually occur in-game. I think it's going to be extremely unlikely that an "average Good" player is "accidentally" involved in killing 4 other average Good players.

This is why I don't have much to say on this subject.

Whether or not that is the case, I think LG groups will find it handy to have one person that can 'detect alignment' so they can better judge whether or not another group is approaching them 'aggressively.' If they are a group of neutrals or CE thugs, it won't make too much of a difference if they determine that the best course of action is to act against their alignment and attempt to murder them preemptively. If they are goods, they have a pretty good idea that they won't attack (especially if it takes weeks or months to recover their alignment).

While it may only take 3-5 murders to drop from Good to Neutral, that is based on the victims also being Good.

If the victims just murdered your friends, they are likely not even close to Good, or they were Good (but are now neutral for the murders) and had very good reason to do it. So, now you must also make the choice of whether you have a good enough reason to murder them. If you murder them, however, you WON'T drop out of Good.

If they are not good, it will take a killing spree of several unflagged groups to lose your alignment. Any CE murderers are likely flying flags anyway for the bonuses, knowing that their alignment isn't much of an obstacle for anybody wishing to stay LG.

The instances where you drop your alignment for murdering just a 'few' persons will be few and far between. And it makes sense to me in those cases.

I will point out for the fourth or fifth time I have never said I was going to be lawful good so your point is largely irrelevant

I guess I don't understand how the system can keep you from correctly RPing, then.

If you murder a guy that murdered your friend last week, then the laws of the gods will likely lead to a shift towards C and E. If you expect this, what is the issue?

if you punch him he will punch you back if he is able to. He will try and punch you back immediately however if you were to punch him while he can't do anything for instance he is tied up he will remember and he will punch you back the next time he sees you.

This is a consistent reaction from the persona of the character

This reaction seems to be consistent with a NN - CE alignment.

I'll state again since this is the true root of the issue: The gods tell you what alignment means; you don't decide what behaviors are LG, they do.

Ryan says "PvE is an important foundation, but not the focus of the game."

I think it's more that you should be thinking of PvE as a factor in your settlement's PvP success, rather than thinking about PvE success as a goal in itself.

This might just be my impression, but I get the feeling that whenever he downplays PvE, it is in relation to the themepark model of questing & dungeoneering and especially the themepark end-game: large-group raiding, difficult scripted encounters, getting the best gear, etc.

None of those things are priorities in PFO... end-game or otherwise. In fact, you won't need to PvE at all (or maybe not much: merit badges, alignment, etc).

That isn't to say that PvE won't be important, or that you won't be able to spend all your time PvEing. I expect that just as one player might focus on PvP, another might focus on PvE. I also expect that there will form an alliance of settlements that take special care to protect their PvEers. They will put extra effort to attract those PvEers that shy away from PvP. We will need PvEers to harvest resources (and fight the mobs that spawn at harvesting camps), to delve into dungeons for items that can be crafted into settlement buildings or equipment, and to craft the items we will need in order to be successful in PvP.

TL;DR: In short, I believe that PvE will be 'limited' in comparison to the MMOs that we are used to. In PFO, there is more PvP going on than PvE (which is different than we are used to), and the end- meta-game will revolve around PvP interactions. PvE will be a means to a successful end-game, rather than an end-game in itself.

Thanks! It's nice to be missed :) As I've mentioned before, I'm usually a ghost (not Ghoste!) around here on the weekends.

I lol'd.

You're not fooling anybody, B!

Sounds 'uncalled for' to me. Also, vigilantism is certainly unlawful.

This conversation is definitely focused on the edge-case.

Nihimon wrote:

@Dario, I'm saying I think my example is more likely to actually occur in-game. I think it's going to be extremely unlikely that an "average Good" player is "accidentally" involved in killing 4 other average Good players.

This is why I don't have much to say on this subject.

Whether or not that is the case, I think LG groups will find it handy to have one person that can 'detect alignment' so they can better judge whether or not another group is approaching them 'aggressively.' If they are a group of neutrals or CE thugs, it won't make too much of a difference if they determine that the best course of action is to act against their alignment and attempt to murder them preemptively. If they are goods, they have a pretty good idea that they won't attack (especially if it takes weeks or months to recover their alignment).

While it may only take 3-5 murders to drop from Good to Neutral, that is based on the victims also being Good.

If the victims just murdered your friends, they are likely not even close to Good, or they were Good (but are now neutral for the murders) and had very good reason to do it. So, now you must also make the choice of whether you have a good enough reason to murder them. If you murder them, however, you WON'T drop out of Good.

If they are not good, it will take a killing spree of several unflagged groups to lose your alignment. Any CE murderers are likely flying flags anyway for the bonuses, knowing that their alignment isn't much of an obstacle for anybody wishing to stay LG.

The instances where you drop your alignment for murdering just a 'few' persons will be few and far between. And it makes sense to me in those cases.

Would being at war, especially consensual war, widen the window to "anytime, anywhere" access?

I do recall reading that settlements that have a wider PVP window, gain advantages for having them set at that.

Follow the link in Lee Hammock's name, that's where you read it. It also answers this question.

Also, scrolling through that thread, I quickly found another post that may give you some context.

Alignment is one of the game systems from the PnP that GW decided to include in PFO in order to 'stay as true to the PnP and Golarion as possible.'

I'm guessing that if you don't like alignment in the PnP, you're unlikely to like it in PFO.

Thanks for linking that, Tuoweit.

This post in that same thread goes into even more detail, and I suggest reading it.

There are quite a few 'well, duh!' comments on these boards that do little except detract attention from meaningful conversation. These extrapolations of how the game in 2 years will work are made based on incomplete information... information that the developers obviously must have, since they are so 'duh.' It can be quite frustrating at times.

I guess maybe I just have more trust in the developers, having interacted at various times.

Regarding the "PvP Vulnerability Window"

During your PvP window your NPC guards will be present, but in far fewer numbers than outside the window so you will need your players there if you are attacked. Meanwhile outside the PvP window the guards will be numerous enough that attacking the settlement will be extremely difficult if its player population shows up to defend it, but it is possible.

You can be attacked at any time, but guards will be present outside the proposed "PvP Window," making it much more difficult. Follow the link for the first full description of the concept; I don't believe we've had anything else to add to or contradict that post.

AvenaOats wrote:

...The alignment is more elusive than a... *suitable metaphor*.

Oh this looks fun!

Bar of soap in a bubble bath?

A snipe on a snipe-hunt?

Nihimon wrote:

@Dario, I'm saying I think my example is more likely to actually occur in-game. I think it's going to be extremely unlikely that an "average Good" player is "accidentally" involved in killing 4 other average Good players.

If I'm not misunderstanding you, then you consider two groups meeting in the wilderness, and getting into a fight due to miscommunication or error so unlikely that you dismiss it from consideration? I'm going to have to disagree with your assessment. It happens in real life where the cost is a lot higher.

I think that will happen often. Those players will be neutral or CE.

Capricious, wrothful, or arbitrary Paladins won't stay Paladins for long.

@Dario, I'm saying I think my example is more likely to actually occur in-game. I think it's going to be extremely unlikely that an "average Good" player is "accidentally" involved in killing 4 other average Good players.

This is why I don't have much to say on this subject.

Whether or not that is the case, I think LG groups will find it handy to have one person that can 'detect alignment' so they can better judge whether or not another group is approaching them 'aggressively.' If they are a group of neutrals or CE thugs, it won't make too much of a difference if they determine that the best course of action is to act against their alignment and attempt to murder them preemptively. If they are goods, they have a pretty good idea that they won't attack (especially if it takes weeks or months to recover their alignment).

Awesome pics.

-I'm really fond of the goblins' look and especially their crude tent.
-I'm very happy with the forest. I can definitely see myself getting immersed in the environmental art; flitting between trees as I not the movements of a rival army
-At first I thought the hands looked weird, but then I realized that was probably because I've never actually seen fingers in an MMO... always a gloves or a solid block-fist. Interesting!
-I like the contrast in lighting from the bright outdoors to the tavern; seems you could have some 'dark corners' in which to meet...
-The settlement is a lot more spacious than I imagined; I was thinking something more along the lines of buildings crammed together to fit inside the walls. I think the extra space will grow on me; I think it will fit well with the rest of the world, which looks quite 'open'

*clicky*

2nd time. I checked at 7AM Central also, just for the hell of it.

yeah, it was pretty fun

I also prefer weekly limits over daily. I haven't considered monthly limits before, but that seems even better.

Daily limits aren't so great for people that can only really play on the weekend but can play for many hours on the weekend. If they won't be able to play one weekend, a weekly limit isn't so great for them, either (unless, of course, the weekly limit is set near 40 hours). Monthly limit is nice because I suspect that most players' monthly playtime doesn't deviate as far from their average monthly playtime as their weekly playtime does.

Coin enters the economy primarily from PvE sources: creature loot and NPC rewards.

We have discussed the possibility of turning precious metals into coin via a mint, but we need to get a better idea of how that would affect the economy before saying for sure. If we did that, it would mean creating general coin; it'd be really confusing to try to treat it as regional currency that might be debased.

Thanks for the input, Stephen. I'm glad to hear that minting is being thought about, and I will be interested in how you come to a final decision about it.

To be clear, when I talk about "settlements being able to create and distribute their own currency," I'm imagining a system something like the DKP system. Settlements could give out DKP currency for whatever activities they wish, and allow players to redeem their DKP with the settlement leaders for whatever they decide. I don't expect any NPC interactions to be tied in with this, it would be recognized only by players making the choice to trade for it. Really, I'm hoping for an in-game interface that settlement leaders could use to set permissions for who has the authority to create these 'points' and that players can use to trade these 'points' to eachother. As far as I know, the mods available in WoW do not allow you to trade points to another player (except by one of the 'points controllers' manually adjusting their scores); this is the function that I would like to see. If the ability to mod the game allows this to happen, I'd be happy with that =)

Let's attempt to make this discussion more clear by trying to address ideas one at a time:

In the tabletop, who would you expect to be more likely to kill everybody in a hex regardless of affiliation: a CE group or a LG group?

Is this a desired result in the MMO?

How can we achieve this result?

I think that warning might be a good idea, but I don't think it should mean that anybody can kill you free of alignment and rep penalties.

When you enter a warzone, you should expect to encounter hostile characters from one or both sides of the conflict, obviously. Both armies know that you are likely there to aid one or the other of them; of course they want to keep you from helping the other so they can win the war! If they are both Lawful Good settlements, maybe you have less reason to expect to be murdered by such upstanding citizens =) That is a choice they will have to make.

... If you've seen that The UnNamed Company has been hired in the conflict, expect no mercy (Bludd, I was indeed thinking of your organization when I put that in my other post ;)

Milo Goodfellow wrote:

I got to thinking about how a player is intended to acquire in game currency

Adventure in the River Kingdoms also goes into how Coin enters the system. The second graphic, titled Settlement Economic System, has a colored line for Coin that shows how it enters the system from the Market and from PvE & Battlefield Combat.

Note that the only coin faucet shown there is PvE & Battlefield Combat; the other relationship is a reciprocal one between "PvE & Battlefield Combat" and "Processing, Crafting, Transport & Trading."

I think this was explained as PvE and PvP players give gold to crafters for gear, and crafters give gold to adventurers for the craftable dungeon rewards they have gathered.

I expect PvE to be a significant part of the game. Maybe this is a little different from other Open FFA PvP games you have played? I'm not sure there is a reason to be concerned about 'taking away from PvP;' the game is going to be PvE -and- PvP. I think PvE is going to be a bigger part of the game than it might seem by looking at the discussion and blog contents; PvP is just a hot topic and perhaps more difficult to get right.

You will be able to acquire some crafting components and items only from PvE dungeons and escalations. I suspect that adventuring vs. humanoid NPCs will indeed be the main faucet for coin.

I humbly suggest reading over some of my favorite blogs, Adventure in the River Kingdoms and Butchers, Bakers, and Candlestick Makers, which explain some of the interactions between PvE adventuring, PvP activities, and crafting. Also the next one, which is relatively short, Where the Wild Things Are, which gives a little more detail on the roll of PvE in this sandbox.

People will choose their role based on many factors. What is 'most lucrative' is only one of those factors, and may not be the most important factor for most (it isn't for me, at least... I like to PvP =P).

That aside, if PvE happens to be wildly more lucrative than anything else at some point, then all those that simply do the 'most lucrative' thing will start doing PvE... At which point dungeons will become scarcer, banditry will become easier (less competition, more potential engagements, better ability to choose targets, etc.), crafters will be in short supply and thus can charge higher prices, merchants' time will be valued higher and can charge higher prices, etc. And then the 'most lucrative' role will be something else for another short period. It balances out in the end.

From my lengthy experience here, I'd say the majority of players posting in these forums accept that PvP will be in the game but are not particularly interested in it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------------

Minting is a really cool idea that I haven't ever seen in a game before. We've talked before about settlements being able to create and distribute their own currency, but minting a global currency that the game is built around is interesting. Thanks for bringing that up.

I wonder if it's just too much mess; adding another variable factor into the money supply will just make GW's control of the economy more difficult. Minting strikes me as a particularly variable faucet, also, as the rate of flow depends on several different PC actions undertaken by different roles of PC.

Any other ideas on the pros and cons of a global minting system?

KJosephDavis wrote:

Suppose a Good kingdom attacks an Evil kingdom. Neutral merchants are supplying Evil forces. This means the Good kingdom might lose the war.

What do they do? They can attack the Neutral merchants, but that might mean the Good kingdom loses some alignment.

In the "occupation laws" proposal I made above, I think it's safe to assume that enacting certain laws (occupation laws or regular settlement laws) will have ongoing alignment repercussions for the enacting settlement (or alternatively, but less interestingly, certain options might simply have alignment prerequisites). A Lawful Good kingdom is going to have a pretty hard time justifying that it's Lawful Good to have a "kill trespassers on sight" law around its home settlement, after all - but it might decide take the alignment hit for a (relatively short-term) siege.

I think this might be a good compromise if we must come to that, but I think KJD has the right of it here... he's convinced me.

-I agree that taking away alignment and rep penalties for attacking non-combative 3rd parties makes the choice of 'should I attack or not?' much easier to make. More factors going into that choice will make it more interesting.

-Why bypass the alignment system? Lawful Goods should be held to a higher moral standard than Chaotic Evils.
-I would expect that LG settlements will simply hire a mercenary or bandit band to do their dirty work for them.
-We've been told that maintaining a Lawful Good alignment is going to be both difficult and rewarding. I think this fits into that design goal; the rewards for that alignment can be used to help pay for these dirty tactics used by a 4th party.

-Just as with the long-ago proposed 'challenge' mechanic, I wonder why we should try to bypass the alignment system; let it work. At worst, I can see something close to Tuoweit's suggestion, where the alignment and rep penalties are somewhat decreased or replaced with a flat daily hit, after some time&money effort has been put forth in order to enact an 'occupation' zone in the settlement hex.

I just wonder if it's worth designing another system for this, in what amounts to a system designed to circumvent an existing system (alignment/rep) in a 'special case.'

Kakafika wrote:

Note that the bandit isn't "bringing more supply to the market," the supply is already in the market. The bandit stole supply, he did not create supply. The total amount of the goods remains the same or actually decreases, due to item destruction upon capture..

You are thinking in real world terms, were the supply of any item is finite, like the amount of currency in circulation. In a game supply is infinite, it has no meaning until it reaches the market, even if it changes hands, it has no real impact on the overall economy.

I could have 6 trillion units of lumber in my storage. That means nothing to everyone else on the server, because 10 other people could have twice as much. Even if someone steals it from me, if they sit on it, that does not impact the game economy. But, if someone suddenly dumps 6 trillion units of lumber on the market, at 1 cp per unit, no one would ever harvest lumber again, and they would certainly not put what they had on the market for anything more than 1 cp. This does not change the nature of the lumber nodes. They can still be harvested at the same rates, previous to the dump.

What GW would have to do is manipulate the supply, by increasing or decreasing the number of nodes or their yield rate and or cycle, to artificially control the potential market supply.

The supply of an item in the game, just as in the real world, is finite. The maximum rate at which resources can be found, extracted, and turned into goods depends on what GW sets them at in the game, as you pointed out.

If you have 6 trillion units of lumber in storage, you have been artificially raising the price of that good in order to accumulate it. That market would be operating at a surplus.

In this graph, if you accumulated that wood by buying all lumber priced under 3(cp), the suppliers are happy to sell just over 40 (trillion) Quantity on the market for that price, while the market only demands just over 30 (trillion). Your 6 trillion lumber comes from part of that excess Quantity Supplied.

When you dump all of that lumber on the market, it is simply a transfer of wealth from you to the consumers. When you set the price at 1(cp), current suppliers will only continue to supply a Quantity of about 10 (trillion). Your lumber will make up the difference between the Quantity Demanded at that price (just over 50 [trillion]) and the Quantity Supplied (just over 10 [trillion]).

After you have finished manipulating the price in this relatively short time, the price will shift towards the equilibrium in the long-run.

@Tuoweit I believe my analysis is correct. Until the product is in use by the end-consumer, it is 'in the market.'

In this case, the quantity of those goods that were for 'private use' is simply replaced by the same quantity that the owning entity must purchase on the market. You accurately perceived this as explained in the second paragraph of your response.

That aside, I believe the item destruction from banditry will be a greater factor than this could ever be, so Supply will absolutely decrease in any case.

This is along the same principle as the question 'what if the bandits use the items themselves?' The demand curve shifts in that case because the bandits are satisfying a portion of their demand outside of the market (through stolen goods) in the long-run.

I've found one of the difficulties in conversing about economics is separating the meanings of the terms Quantity Demanded/Supplied and Demand/Supply. Their scientific meanings are much stricter than the colloquial uses. I even used the words incorrectly in a few parts of my earlier posts.

Springfield, IL
Just moved from Wisconsin a few months ago. Drove through Decatur on my way to Champaign for some work today =P

@Randomwalker I think KJD said it best:

The argument that theft somehow improves economic conditions is absurd. This has nothing to do with whether or not banditry should be in the game.

Banditry is not good for merchants. It is terrible for consumers.

Banditry is good for bandits and especially good for crafters (assuming the crafter isn't transporting goods himself i.e. he is acting as a merchant).

Some merchants will enjoy the danger of potentially being robbed, but that doesn't mean they are -all- better off for it. My high-school econ teacher used to say "You can't see the forest for the trees." I think that is a big part of what is happening in this thread. It's easy to freeze a moment in time and look at how an action might change things in that moment; some merchants and consumers will be better off than they could have been without bandits, but that is a very small portion of the total effect of banditry.

Over time, I have been witness to at least a few players seeing how banditry is going to work out and deciding not to open themselves up to that risk; those players are certainly not (having more fun) better off from banditry, as they gave up on their 1st choice of role.

We are all are looking forward to the game as designed, and banditry is necessary in the game design. This does not require players in each 'group' to be better off from banditry.

@Bluddwolf Most people that sell items on the market may only take those into consideration, yes. But the successful merchants will consider all of their costs, rather than only a few, and they will control the bulk of items.

These are the ones that are going to be setting prices. Those that only look at current prices will be, by definition, working off of their prices.

As I have said, the PFO belief that banditry will help the economy and merchants is by removing supply and increasing the prices of what does make it to market. That does not address the central question: What does the bandit do with what he steals?

If I am forced to bring the stolen goods to the market, that is not only bringing more supply to the market ( lower prices), but I will also have the urge to make a quick return on my stolen goods... Sell low, sell now! It is all profit to me anyway.

Bandits need to have a means and need of consuming what we steal. Without consumption, we just become another merchant in the market place.

Hmm, I thought I addressed this in my previous post:

To address your questions:

If every bandit is able to take 100% of the merchants' wares every time (they're not), nothing changes. The important thing is not the number of sellers, but rather the Quantity Supplied. Since no items are leaving the market, the Supply curve isn't shifted in the long run.

If you use some or all of what you take, the effects are reflected by a decrease in Demand, as you are no longer required to purchase those resources on the market. This shift in Demand would result in lower equilibrium Price and Quantity. I think this is correct, but I specifically didn't address this because I'm unsure if this should also include a shift in the Supply curve... but the full picture requires a shift in supply anyway:

When you take into account both the item loss from banditry and the direct use of some loot by bandits, there is a shift in both Demand and Supply, resulting in an ambiguous change in equilibrium Price and a large decrease in equilibrium Quantity.

That takes into account both the bandit selling the items and the bandit using the items.

Note that the bandit isn't "bringing more supply to the market," the supply is already in the market. The bandit stole supply, he did not create supply. The total amount of the goods remains the same or actually decreases, due to item destruction upon capture.

I've said it before, if "food or die" becomes the situation, it will reduce my interaction with other players. I'll log in, do whatever I need to do, and log out, rather than hanging around chatting with people. It means that every minute I'm logged into game is costing my character coin. Spending coin to chat with my friends is not worth it. I can do that out of game, though that means I don't meet anyone new.

"Food or debuff" I can live with (depending on then nature of the debuff), since it means I eat when I plan on actually playing the game, and just ignore a stat penalty when I'm hanging around goofing off.

I think this is a great reason not to have starvation in PFO. Even if you can buy a bunch of cheap food, you will still lose some of the time on your 'good food' buff if you sit around chatting after going on an adventure.

In the TT, you can <pause> the game whenever you like. Not so in the MMO.

I also think there are good reasons to reflect 'thirst' and 'hunger' as a lack of a buff, rather than a debuff.

Anybody interested in further information on how I came to these conclusions, please search the forums for words like 'hunger,' 'thirst,' 'food,' 'drink,' and 'toilet' or 'potty.' There have to be 5 threads out there with very full discussions. Those last two might be your best bet to finding direct links to these conversations =P

I hope we can stop ourselves from derailing this thread into another hunger/thirst thread...

The Consumer is the only party that is sure to lose in every case regardless of the elasticity of demand because, in the long-run, the shifts of demand and supply lead to a lower equilibrium Quantity of goods being bought & sold, meaning many consumers are not getting items that they otherwise might be able to have.

Part of the problem is, I am still waiting for an answer to this:

Quote:

Economic Question:

I think I understand the Dev Blog section "The Most Dangerous Game" when it says that bandits are removing some of the resources before they reach the market, and that lowers supplies, driving the prices up so that the merchants still make a decent profit. Yeah, I get supply and demand.

What are the bandits doing with it?

If bandits are taking the same resources to market, then there is little market impact on the supply side. All it will mean is that there is an additional seller. Yes, more sellers typically means lower prices for the consumer, but that typically remains within the 5% + or - range (based on my experience with markets in EVE).

Of course, the bandits may have their own crafters, who will convert some of the resources they stole into the gear and items that they need, as bandits. A self sufficient operation is a primary goal for bandits, we don't steal to give other people our money unless we absolutely have to.

If loot were converted, artificially (resources and items do not go to market) into both coin and maintaining a hideout, then that would also remove the resources from the market.

Again, self sufficiency. If our looting covers our overhead + a small profit, that is the goal. If our looting covers our overhead, and nothing more, well at least we had fun doing it. If our looting is not covering our overhead, then we are in the wrong line of work.

To start, I want to clarify something, in case I'm still failing to communicate: We use 'equilibrium' price because we know that in the short-term, price and quantity will vary. We can only get meaningful Macro Economic data by looking at the long-term effects. Of course, to the bandit and the merchant, the ability to capitalize on short-term fluctuations separates the 'Greats' from the rest, though they certainly need to understand the long-term picture in order to succeed in the long-run.

To address your questions:

If every bandit is able to take 100% of the merchants' wares every time (they're not), nothing changes. The important thing is not the number of sellers, but rather the Quantity Supplied. Since no items are leaving the market, the Supply curve isn't shifted in the long run.

If you use some or all of what you take, the effects are reflected by a decrease in Demand, as you are no longer required to purchase those resources on the market. This shift in Demand would result in lower equilibrium Price and Quantity. I think this is correct, but I specifically didn't address this because I'm unsure if this should also include a shift in the Supply curve... but the full picture requires a shift in supply anyway:

When you take into account both the item loss from banditry and the direct use of some loot by bandits, there is a shift in both Demand and Supply, resulting in an ambiguous change in equilibrium Price and a large decrease in equilibrium Quantity (as shown here in Graph 6).

@ Kakafika,

I found these definitions / explanations and graphs that are a bit easier to understand, at least they were for me:

Investopedia

In these charts, I believe the authors are using Price as the determining factor. I'm not quite sure how price can be the start point for the cycle, ahead of supply.

In my thinking, you need to have a supply on hand, before you can set a price. That price would then be adjusted based on the demand and its impact on your supply.

You certainly can not float a price out on an in-game market, without product already, to gauge interest (demand) for that product at that price point.

I guess you could meta game it and have pre order sales.

That seems like a good link. I have no teaching experience, and I find that I sometimes have trouble explaining my thinking =)

The part that is applicable to modeling an economic system is the full graph with both Demand and Supply plotted. The two curves and the shifts they undergo due to economic factors determine the equilibrium Price and Quantity.

It's easier to think about when you remember that it is a model of Long-Run Equilibrium. Don't worry about the specific point in time where you happen to have The One Ring; once people start bringing The Two Ring and The Three Ring and so forth, that's when the model becomes applicable.

When a merchant brings items to market, he will have an idea of which prices he hopes to receive. He will base his price on many factors:

-The value of his time in transporting the item to this market
-The cost of hiring a caravan
-The cost of hiring guards or accepting SADs
-The cost of the risk of losing all his items to an attack
-How many other items he transported that he can split these costs across
-The cost he paid for the item or its inputs
-The current price of the item in that market
-The regional price of the item
-The opportunity cost for foregoing a lower-than-desirable sale here and transporting that item to another market
-How long he is willing to sit on the item before it sells
&MORE

I suppose you're right, though; when a merchant has little idea if it's worth a trip, he may just ask around 'what would you pay for this item?' If he likes what he hears, he's in business. Some shadier-types might notice this merchant noisily inquiring about prices for items, and sell information that bandit-types might be able to profit from ;P

@Bludd I mentioned I haven't applied economics to a game before because I'm not familiar what other factors may be easily applicable to the model. Virtual world economics are much easier to describe with the science because you can know all the factors involved; real-world economics makes a lot of assumptions and often has to focus on the aggregate of many effects rather than being able to model the real world economy in a simpler fashion.

This is why it is said that "if you laid all the economists head-to-toe across the world, you still wouldn't reach a conclusion;" there is too much going on to be able to know with any certainty.

Virtual worlds can give us access to exact data and have fewer potential factors, making analysis and predictions easier. I wanted to do my undergraduate thesis on the WoW economy, but trying to get Blizzard to give me access to game data wasn't easy and my instructor wasn't very thrilled about it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------

Regarding your example in EvE, this is a market manipulation one could pull off that you could see the effects of if you froze a small window in time, but in the long run, this had no effect on the equilibrium price.